This game is a rocket launching game, so physics simulation must be the top priority.

After more than an year of early access, it still doesn't give you the correct TWR when you're engines are misaligned(Giving that is as simple as just multiplying thrust by cos(theta)), no performance analysis based on the body you're gonna launch, no surface accelerations, no ascend/descend nodes and a tons more.

I've bought this game in a hope that someday this can replace or outperform KSP RO/RSS but it seems not. It does't feel like the matter of time, but the matter of philosophy of the development. Seems like it doesn't wanna be a physics sandbox but wanna be a craft building game.

Which is a good goal, but doesn't fit with my needs.

Tags
Off Topic

19 Comments

  • Log in to leave a comment
  • Profile image

    Dude sometimes you gotta learn not to rely on the nodes all the time anyways.

    4 days ago
  • Profile image

    @ComposerFreak let laugh with you

    1.4 years ago
  • Profile image

    Good lord lmao

    1.4 years ago
  • Profile image

    @crowxe There will be the new Vizzy blocks to transfrom global vector to local vector so it would be much easier soon.

    +1 1.4 years ago
  • Profile image
    7,209 crowxe

    @AnotherFireFox
    I kinda agree with that, I even believe that philosophy "put the row data and let the players use it how they like" . I'm struggling for 2 days now to calculate my horizontal and vertical course angle through the vectors but I don't wanna complain because the difficulty is mostly due to my math abilities, it would have been better if those angles were there in the information section, it wouldn't make the game silly easy, we still have lots of tough tasks after that (in my case, comparing those 2 angles with a grounded target bearing angles for automated guided landing)

    1.4 years ago
  • Profile image

    @crowxe True, that's why I said it's the matter of philosophy. There's not a lot of thing we're missing. They're in game but we don't get them without extra efforts.

    1.4 years ago
  • Profile image
    7,209 crowxe

    i think all what you mentioned can be obtained through new vizzy, unless i misunderstood you. and even if things are missing, this shouldn't stop you from enjoying the game. Before new vizzy there was no way to know target direction to perform automated docking but i used pitch input to get indication of where's the target in relation to prograde until the Dev heard the so many calls and put the update

    1.4 years ago
  • Profile image

    @pedro16797 In this case the roll axis is not really roll axis but the craft's should-be nose direction. We already have the roll axis Vizzy block so the game doesn't take care of that. If your engines aren't pointing that way, they're misaligned. We don't need true TWR regardless of the nose axis.

    +1 1.4 years ago
  • Profile image

    @AnotherFireFox what I mean is that craft roll axis is not easy to determine, it's not always aligned with the pilot position or with the thrust vector direction, that could give an imprecise twr value

    1.4 years ago
  • Profile image

    @pedro16797 multiply cos(theta) for that. theta here is the angle between craft's roll axis and the engine's thrust vector. In this case however you don't need to calculate the angles between two vectors since we already know the value from designer.

    1.4 years ago
  • Profile image

    @AnotherFireFox imagine your thrust vector doesn't point forward but to a side, or that you have engines canceling eachother

    1.4 years ago
  • Profile image

    @zzazza I haven't because I understand these are less important than what they're doing now.

    @AstronautPlanes As I wrote, they're not complex. We should understand that simple is not equal to the not-yet-polished.

    @pedro16797 I agree. They did a lot more than what they have expected to. When it comes to the TWR calculation, you don't need vectors since the only direction we care is the craft's roll axis. Project the thrust vector to the axis by multiplying them with Cos(theta) and just add them.

    1.4 years ago
  • Profile image

    The twr calculation is not as easy as just multiplying by theta but it could be done with a vector sum instead of magnitude sum as it is now. Not sure about the hit in the performance doing so. If they let us access all the things accessible through input controllers and part position (relative to the com)/rotation it may be possible to calculate it ad hoc in a vizzy program.
    .
    Performance analysis based on planets is a good idea, it affects only planets with atmosphere and the twr value but would be interesting to have
    .
    The ascend/descend node is planned iirc (you can see them now but not select them).
    .
    To be honest, just this things shouldn't make you leave, there are other problems that affect the gameplay more (some broken basic orbit dynamics, minor inconveniences like having to go out of the designer to select a launch location, aerodynamic glitches, simple details that could be added like capping speed to c, inconsistencies in some parts...) but I understand that they are a really small team and the focus now has to be to build a strong base for the game with the basic mechanics (planet studio, career mode...) that take a lot of work and are quintessential to the game success.
    .
    In fact, look back at all the things they've done in just one year, I was expecting most of them to take twice as long: the android release, vizzy, the jets and engines, the lights... They've even added things that most of the community doesn't use just to make us, the active players, happy, like everything to do with the input controllers. It's really obvious how much they care for us and how much love they have for this game.

    +3 1.4 years ago
  • Profile image
    19.5k Rafaele

    This is a "simple" game, like the name says...


    Still, maybe in some months or even less, modders will begin to add custom physics, it's just a matter of time.


    You can still play KSP RO/RSS, maybe SR2 will also have it's own RO soon, this game is still really early, just with a year of early development.


    KSP has near a decade.

    1.4 years ago
  • Profile image
    2,355 zzazza

    You should post this in "Suggestions", rather than complaining here.

    +2 1.4 years ago
  • Profile image

    @AndrewGarrison always appreciating you and your team's effort. The lists I wrote above is something I must expect without asking when I play the game as a rocket sim sandbox, not a building game. For example, if a game with a spaceship lacks the Newtonian dynamics, I would play the game as something else, rather than a rocket sim. I'm not saying lacking this kind of features are bad. There's a lot of space games without the idea of dV, apoapsis, periapsis and Isp but still great. It just disappoints me who is nobody but a single player.

    1.4 years ago
  • Profile image

    We try to respond to player feedback as much as we can, but we are a small team and can't get to everything. Also, I don't think I've seen any suggestion posts for the things you have mentioned, except the ascending/descending nodes.

    +7 1.4 years ago
  • Profile image

    @Mod I don't ask for the fancy pants n-body sims or the fluid mechanics, because they're not simple. Newtonian Dynamics, however, is simple on it's full fledged form. The things we don't have I listed are all simple things. They're even already in-game, but not in the way we can easily check. That's why I say it's a matter of philosophy.

    +2 1.4 years ago
  • Profile image
    Mod Ctracerx2

    The name of the game is "Simple"Rockets 2, I don't think it's trying to be a full on simulator. I think it's trying to give the feeling of being close enough that you can learn from it, while also still being fun and realistic (to a point).. Which is why I love the game.

    +6 1.4 years ago

3 Upvotes

Log in in to upvote this post.